Central Information Commission
Mr.Dharam Dass Chawla vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 8 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002331/15498
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002331
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dharam Dass Chawla
7966, Arakasha Road,
Pahar Ganj, New Delhi - 110055
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o The Superintending Engineer (Bldg.), Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Idgah Road, Delhi - 110006 RTI application filed on : 10/05/2011 PIO replied on : 22/06/2011 First Appeal filed on : 12/07/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : Not Mentioned Second Appeal received on : 26/08/2011 The information sought: The Appellant asked regarding action report of illegal demolished on Plot No. 7964-7965 Aarakasha Road Pahar Ganj New Delhi after order. The required information as under:
1. Please provide the name, designation, presently posting place, and all particulars of the said officials. Provide the action taken report by the concern officials.
Whether the above property related to demolition on 11-08-2011. Department can't do any thing because there is not Police force for support. Provide the complaint/FIR copy of the same.
3. Due to shortage of the time the concern official can not do any thing in respect of the same property. Pl. provide the name, designation and action taken report.
What was the reason for 15th month delay for making schedule in respect of action taken. Provide the reason for not taking/issuing any action /order after 25th Months by the department.
Provide the name, designation of responsible schedule holder officials after the issued order.
7. Provide the action taken report/information of guilty officials in respect of not taking any action on above property under the section 343 of MCD.
8. If building is not demolished by the department after the passing MCD order. What are the department dead lines for demolishing/sealing said property by the department provide the information.
9. Department can give permission for commercialization in illegal building if not, in which section permission can be given. Pl. provide the action taken such using illegal building for commercial purpose.
The PIO reply:
1. lr sought by the applicant through this point is that no daily ATR of the officials of this office is Page 1 of 3 available in this office however on 29.012007 Sh. Kapil Garg the then J.E.(B) had taken action on ongoing properties in the area, on 28.05.2008 Sh. S.A. Niyazi the then WE. (B) . had take action on P.No, BB Ahoka Basti, Nabi Karim at IIIrd floor one room exist which is completely demolished also one wall near stair case has been removed, Darpan Hotel, Arakasha Road at lVth floor two rooms one toilet/bath has been demolished completely, 10394, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj at lllrd floor root of the room completely dismantled/removed, on 23.07.2008, Sh. Naveen the then J.E. (B) had take action on P.No. 7409, Arakasha Road, Pahar Ganj, Near Dharam Kata, Vandana Hotel. New Delhi, one temporary wooden room at 1st floor was permanently removed, on 27.01.2009 Sh. Purshotam Meena the then J.E. (B) had take action on P.No. BB-350, Ahoka Basti, Nabi Karim in the shape roof of room is demolished completely at llnd floor, 6455, Factory Road, Nabi Karim in the shape roof of a hall is demolished partly at IInd floor.
2. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that the demolition programme is fixed as per routine programme,
3. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that on 21.02.2007 Sh. Kapil Garg the then J.E (B) had take action, on 27.02.2007 no demolition programme taken by this department/office or no demolition programme fixed by this office on the above said date, no daily ATR is available of the officials of this office and no such info is available with this office about the present posting of the then officials.
4. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that demolition programme had fixed as per scheduled programme or as per policy of the department.
5. Information sought by the applicant though this point is that as per available record no such information is available with this office.
6. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that the demolition programme is scheduled for every month by the Ex. Engineer of this office.
7. Information sought by the applicant through this point is mat demolition programme has been taken by the official as per policy of the department.
8. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that the demolition/sealing action taken as per policy of the department
9. Information sought by the applicant through this point is that no commercial activity has been allowed/granted by this office, for commercial activity sealing action against the property has been initiate under section 345A of DM0 Act for misuse Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was received an unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and unsatisfactory order was passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dharam Dass Chawla;
Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, EE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE;
The respondent has produced a letter before the Commission in which the PIO/SE(SPZ) has issued a memo to EE(B) SPZ & Deemed PIO on 17/10/2011 for failing to provide the revised information on points 1, 2 & 4 to the Appellant as per the order of the FAA, DC(SPZ) on 02/09/2011. In the said memo the SE has threatened disciplinary action against the deemed PIO. In response to this the present Deemed Page 2 of 3 PIO Mr. Manoj Kumar has brought the information today which has been handed over to the Appellant today. Mr. Manoj Kumar states that the FAA's order was received by the then Deemed PIO/EE(B) Mr. S. K. Aggarwal.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is now directed to provide the information as available on the records on queries 7, 8 & 9 to the Appellant before 30 November 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then Deemed PIO/EE(B) Mr. S. K. Aggarwal within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Mr. S. K. Aggarwal the then Deemed PIO/EE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 05 December 2011 at 12.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK)) Copy through Mr. Manoj Kumar, EE to:
1- Mr. S. K. Aggarwal the then Deemed PIO/EE(B);
Page 3 of 3